Senator Feinstein to introduce a new AWB

[SteveS]

My worry isn't legislation, its a derivative of the UN ban or an EO.

I wish I could be so optimistic.  There is way more of a clamor to do something than I remember in the last 20 years. 

Do you think that Congress will just be lazy and focus on something else or do you think there will be enough Rep's and Senators standing up to the Feinstein et al?

[T.O.M.]

Part of my fear on this is the shame factor that can (and will) be thrown at anyone standing in opposition to any gun control measures proposed.  Like it or not, in this age of social media and elections based not on qualifications but charisma, a politician will be unlikely to stand up in favor of gun rights when a future opponent will post photos of these murdered children on a commercial or web page with a tag line "Congressman Smith voted to keep guns like the ones used to slaughter these children on the streets, putting the lives of millions of other children at risk."  Yeah, we'll call bull, but a lot of parents at the PTO meeting will be voting against Congressman Smith because of ads like that.

[Hawkmoon]

Meanwhile, another lonely police chief acting as a voice of sanity crying out in the wilderness of mass hysteria:

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2012/12/17/county-police-chief-recommends-arming-school-personnel/

[RoadKingLarry]

Part of my fear on this is the shame factor that can (and will) be thrown at anyone standing in opposition to any gun control measures proposed.

Ive already seen the NRA condemned for their comments on the shooting, all they said was No comments till all the facts are in.

[slingshot]

Just a quickie because it relates to gun control and the Sandy Hook shootings.  Rush L is throwing a bit of a different slant on things and worth listening to.

[birdman]

I also suspect that the mag limit will be considered constitutional and I doubt it would be challenged specifically.  It is a restriction not a denial of rights.  Making many commonly available firearms illegal is another matter and that will be the big test if that in fact happens.

The mental health issue needs to be addressed, but it is a matter of degree in my opinion.  Requiring for example a mental health examination prior to the purchase of a firearm would be restrictive of the right.  Requiring you to provide personal references attesting to your sound character are another.

Requiring effectively all firearm transfers to go through a FFL is almost a given if a new law is passed.

Executive Order (EO) powers are not clearly defined.  But I think it is clear that the President has the authority to restrict specific imports.

Strengthening Federal firearm laws without legislative action is debatable.  But "smaller" revisions to Form 4473 and BATFE authority are likely.

The UN Small Arms Treaty is another concern but with Sandy Hook, ratification becomes a possibility at this point.

1. Regarding the mg limit, without confiscation and/or ex post facto, it would be useless, and also cause the same problem NY has with their mag limit, since date of mfg isn't stamped on mags anymore post AWB sunset, there is no way to prove it isn't grandfathered.  Given the dramatic increase in number of modern sporting rifles in use with standard 20-30rnd magazines, and the dramatic rise in the maker movement, any magazine restriction will likely simply create a sound black/grey (since date can't be proven) market for modified magazines, not to mention production of modifiable magazines.  Think the way designer drugs skirt the law, and give the incentive to more people with more money.

2. Regarding mental health of any kind (including references) not not no, but HELL no, it would've ext to useless in stopping instances like this, create a massive grey market in "straw references" or "one hand washes another" and create an opening for official adjudication and the associated slippery slope.  It won't prevent how the crazies get weapons, and simply create yet another hoop for legal purchases by law abiding folks.

3. All transfers through an FFL eliminates the last impediment to national registration, as it allows the same type of EO or non-legislative regulation that they threw at the border states for long gun registration.  Universal registration is ALWAYS (in every country that has done it) followed by restriction or elimination.  It's no ones business how many firearms I own, jet like its no ones business how many laptops I own.  Also, this wouldn't prevent any crimes, illegal transfers would still occur, straw purchases would still occur, and all it does is create a slippery slope opening.

We all need to face the cold truth, the only way to stop someone intent on killing others and going through with it is to stop them as quickly as possible, no laws will prevent it, only citizens and LEOs (when possible) defending themselves and others.

[cosine]

Sen. Joe Manchin (D. W.V., NRA A-rated) calls for a discussion about assault weapons.

Manchin issued criticism of assault weapons, saying, "I don't know anyone in the sporting or hunting arena that goes out with an assault rifle. I don't know anybody that needs 30 rounds in a clip to go hunting. I mean, these are things that need to be talked about."

It looks like we'll get to separate the NRA A-rated congressmen into two groups: the true 2nd Amendment supporters, and the Fudds.

[slingshot]

All those things I agree with Birdman.

[slingshot]

I feel that a national discussion may be warranted.  That is politics.  It does not change the fact that most of the likely changes to existing Federal law would have no effect on stopping a Sandy Hook and only create more restrictions for legal gun owners which usually means it will be more expensive, more inconvenient and so forth.

I thought it interesting that the perps mother was deemed a prepper by Rush.  Target shooting was a new found hobby and I would think it normal for her to share that experience with a 20 year old son.  Ultimately the damn kid shot her.  That is love for you.  Words do not describe my disdain for this punk.

[T.O.M.]

I feel that a national discussion may be warranted.  That is politics.  It does not change the fact that most of the likely changes to existing Federal law would have no effect on stopping a Sandy Hook and only create more restrictions for legal gun owners which usually means it will be more expensive, more inconvenient and so forth.

That's using common sense and logic in a situation being driven by nothing more than pure, raw emotion resulting from the tragedy.  It's the nature of politicians to step up in times like this to do what they do best...propose and pass laws that do nothing to actually prevent the tragedy from re-occurring, but will give them something to brag about during the next election cycle.

The problem with any tragedy like this one, or going back to Columbine, Paducah, and any of the other mass shootings is that there is no one quick fix solution to the problems.  We here on APS know this, just like we know that banning every gun from private ownership will not stop mass violence from occurring, but merely change the weapons of choice.  Yet, to those who see no value to the private ownership of firearms, a ban causes no problems but creates the illusion of greater safety because "the bad guys can't get guns to do this again."  Yeah, they can, so it won't fix the problem.  But I fully expect Feinstein to rally the troops and call for cap restrictions, bans of specific firearms, and more.  Frankly, I hope that the quotes I've read are accurate, and that it's just a prospective ban on these items, and not a ban on their current possession. 

[Perd Hapley]

So tired of the line that "we need to have a discussion about guns." Liars. We've been having the discussion for decades. The bad guys have been losing. Liars.

[Perd Hapley]

On ex post facto, that may be a factor if buying EBRs is banned. But if mere possession is banned, that is something that EBR owners are currently doing. (Unless, of course, you lost them in a boating mishap.)

[lupinus]

discussion my ass.

Their idea of a discussion is explaining to us backward folk why we need to get with the times and give up our guns.

[AZRedhawk44]

I don't attend 1-way "discussions."


I'll be in the desert, hunting rabbits with my AR.

[Boomhauer]

Go read at least the opening chapters of Matthew Bracken's first Enemies book. That is all.

[T.O.M.]

On ex post facto, that may be a factor if buying EBRs is banned. But if mere possession is banned, that is something that EBR owners are currently doing. (Unless, of course, you lost them in a boating mishap.)

The deal on ex post facto is that the Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws.  This means laws which make certain behavior criminal, and then the .gov attempts to apply these new laws to old facts.  In other words, say the AWb is passed and makes it illegal to buy or sell an EBR.  You are seen at a range with an ABR that you purchased in 1980.  You cannot be covicted for the purchase of that weapon in 1980 under the new AWB, as that would amount to an ex post facto law.

Where the concern shoud lie is that in Calder v. Bull, the Constitutional proivision against ex post facto was found to apply only to criminal laws, and not civil laws.  This is key to our discussion as the feds use civil suits to seek confiscation and forfeiture of property.  If current possession is outlawed, it wouldn't surprise me to see civil actions initiated seeking forfeiture of the property...

[AZRedhawk44]

The deal on ex post facto is that the Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws.  This means laws which make certain behavior criminal, and then the .gov attempts to apply these new laws to old facts.  In other words, say the AWb is passed and makes it illegal to buy or sell an EBR.  You are seen at a range with an ABR that you purchased in 1980.  You cannot be covicted for the purchase of that weapon in 1980 under the new AWB, as that would amount to an ex post facto law.

Where the concern shoud lie is that in Calder v. Bull, the Constitutional proivision against ex post facto was found to apply only to criminal laws, and not civil laws.  This is key to our discussion as the feds use civil suits to seek confiscation and forfeiture of property.  If current possession is outlawed, it wouldn't surprise me to see civil actions initiated seeking forfeiture of the property...

Then make it as impossible as possible () to collect damages.

They win the civil case, fine.  I don't have the firearm.  Here's $1000, the equivalent of its value.  Now go away, you've won your judgement.  (And I just cost them thousands of dollars to enforce their stupid civil case enforcement methodology.)  You think I still have it?  Fine, sue me again.  Prove I still have it.  Hire PI's to tail me.  Gosh, I lost it again.  Darn.

[SteveS]

Then make it as impossible as possible () to collect damages.

They win the civil case, fine.  I don't have the firearm.  Here's $1000, the equivalent of its value.  Now go away, you've won your judgement.  (And I just cost them thousands of dollars to enforce their stupid civil case enforcement methodology.)  You think I still have it?  Fine, sue me again.  Prove I still have it.  Hire PI's to tail me.  Gosh, I lost it again.  Darn.

I agree that any kind of large scale civil confiscation would be expensive and not very feasible.  Buying, selling, and possessing firearms, as it is, can be prohibitive.  I certainly don't relish it getting more difficult.  

[AZRedhawk44]

I agree that any kind of large scale civil confiscation would be expensive and not very feasible.  Buying, selling, and possessing firearms, as it is, can be prohibitive.  I certainly don't relish it getting more difficult.  I

Meh.

It's already un-enforceable.  I'm at the point of apathy.  To hell with 'em.  Long live private purchases.  They'll just become word-of-mouth, rather than via Backpage.com.  Or some other means to advertise a gun for sale via private party.

I'm already happy buying private party almost exclusively... no 4473, no paper trail, no excise tax to feed Leviathan, no sales tax to feed the local Jabberwockie... everything needed to spite the State.

[Jamisjockey]

1) Prohibitive and punative taxes on ammo and components.
2) 4473 for Ammo purchases over probably 50 rounds at a time.
3) I would not be surprised if they go for the full monty this time.  AWB II including banning the manufacture of new AR15's and components.
They killed the street sweeper by name, remember?

Just my gut.

[AZRedhawk44]

AWB is dead before arrival, already.


We can print polymer AR lowers with a $1000 open source 3d printer.

Someone will rapidly figure out how to print 30rd AR mags similar to PMAGs, as soon as/if a ban hits.  Right now, at $10/mag for PMAGs and $7/mag for aluminum ones, it ain't worth it.

Any AWB will have to include the upper receiver as a redefinition as a firearm in order to take into account , which will create massive problems.  All our "unserialed" uppers will be worth a small fortune.  Possibly on par with the 1986 FOPA fiasco.  How do you perform a barrel replacement?  Military and law enforcement don't track uppers, and they'd have to start doing that as well.  

[brimic]

2. Regarding mental health of any kind (including references) not not no, but HELL no, it would've ext to useless in stopping instances like this, create a massive grey market in "straw references" or "one hand washes another" and create an opening for official adjudication and the associated slippery slope.  It won't prevent how the crazies get weapons, and simply create yet another hoop for legal purchases by law abiding folks.

As an aside, wasn't Roe V. Wade decided on the basis of patient-doctor confidentiality (ie privacy)?

It would be an interesting knot the libs would tie themselves in if they approached from that angle alone.

[slingshot]

If I have to turn something in... I want paid in silver at face value.  Silver Eagles would be just fine.  Legal currency.

[Angel Eyes]

[SteveS]

Meh.

It's already un-enforceable.  I'm at the point of apathy.  To hell with 'em.  Long live private purchases.  They'll just become word-of-mouth, rather than via Backpage.com.  Or some other means to advertise a gun for sale via private party.

I'm already happy buying private party almost exclusively... no 4473, no paper trail, no excise tax to feed Leviathan, no sales tax to feed the local Jabberwockie... everything needed to spite the State.

I understand that there will be ways around it and there will be plenty of people that have "boating accidents", but if the end result is super expensive components, mags, etc. (like in the previous AWB), then it will unfortunate.  I am also concerned what effect a broad based ban would have on the firearms industry.